The Godly House-Wife

[Esaias]

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (4) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, (5) To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.


"Keepers at home" -

G3626
οἰκουρός, όν,
(οὖρος B)
I watching or keeping the house, of a watch-dog, Ar. V. 970; of a cock, Plu. 2.998b; οἰ. ὄφις, of the sacred serpent in the Acropolis, Ar. Lys. 759, Phylarch. 72 J., Hsch.
II
1. keeping at home: as Subst., οἰκουρός, ἡ, mistress of the house, housekeeper, S. Fr. 487, E. Hec. 1277: as Adj., Id. HF 45 (masc.); ἡ θεὸς ἡ καλουμένη οἰ. PLond. 1.125v. 11 (v A.D.); used in praise of a good wife, Ph. 2.431, D.C. 56.3.
2. contemptuously of a man, stay-at-home, opp. one who goes forth to war, λέοντ' ἄναλκιν.. οἰκουρόν A. Ag. 1225, cf. 1626, Din. 1.82; τὸν ὑγρὸν τοῦτον καὶ οἰ. Plu. 2.751a; δίαιτα οἰ. καὶ ἀργή Id. Per. 34.

"Guide the house" -

G3616
οἰκοδεσποτ-έω,
I to be master of a house or head of a family, 1Ti_5:14.
II Astrol., predominate, POxy. 235.16 (i A. D.), PLond. 1.130.163 (i/ii A. D.), Plu. 2.908c, Ptol. Tetr. 39, Luc. Astr. 20, Vett.Val. 64.8, Iamb. Myst. 9.5, etc.; cf. sq. 11.

It is Scriptural for a Christian wife to be a "keeper at home", one who guards and maintains the house. The term is specifically used derisively of men who stayed home and did not go forth to war. The term therefore clearly is the opposite of one who "goes forth". And that would include one who "goes forth to pursue a career". The idea of the dual income house, where both the man and the wife work outside the home to "bring home the bacon", is unscriptural, unChristian, and humanistic. It was introduced in the 20th century as a means to destroy the traditional family unit and structure, and it has been very successful in doing just that. Traditional Christians however seek to maintain the Biblical family structure, building strong families which will be the basis for a future strong Christian society.

Why is the Christian woman to be a "keeper at home"? It is because she is Scripturally instructed to "guide the house", to be an "oikodespotes", to "oikodespotein". Which means literally to be despot of the house. The woman, while under the authority of the husband, is nevertheless the despot of the house. She is the Mistress of the domestic sphere and all it entails. To get an idea of how this actually works, a quick look at Abraham and Sarah will suffice:

Genesis 16:1-6 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. (2) And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. (3) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. (4) And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. (5) And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. (6) But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

When people read this account they focus on the problem of Hagar, and Abraham being "dumb enough" to go along with this harebrained scheme. And in the process they miss a larger picture, and an important backdrop to the whole episode: Sarah was in charge of domestic affairs. Abraham wasn't relinquishing authority, nor was he abandoning his post. Neither was Sarah usurping authority, she was exercising her rightful place as the Woman of the house (or tent, as the case may be) and making decisions concerning the servant girl.

Now watch this:

Genesis 21:9-12 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. (10) Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (11) And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. (12) And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Sarah decided she had had enough of the servant girl and her uppity boy, so she demands that they be sent away. And God told Abraham to do it. Why? There were certainly Providential dealings of a prophetic nature going on, as we all know. But there is another reason as well - Sarah was in charge of the household under Abraham, and thus had a right to make such a demand with a reasonable expectation that it be met.

This of course doesn't imply she could usurp authority from Abraham. If Abraham had said "no, the girl and her boy stay" then Sarah would have had to bide her time. But it does illustrate that as the "woman of the house" she was second in command to her husband.

A Christian housewife is not just a maid or cook, no different than hired help. Rather, she is the oikodespotes who guards the home, protecting the children by guiding them, managing the domestic affairs.

I will relate an anecdote. My daughter at one time was teaching a Bible study series on "women of the Bible". She said many of the ladies who came rolled their eyes at the subject and were expecting to hear all about how the Bible teaches women should shut up, cook the meals, stay barefoot and pregnant, do what they're told, etc, that the man is the god of the house and king of the castle, etc. They were shocked when they discovered that, contrary to the world's feminist propaganda and lies, the Bible charges women with great responsibility, authority, and power. Far more so than any other religious teaching or tradition in history, and even more so than is commonly hoped for by modern "liberated" couples.

In a common "liberated" and secular marriage, they say everything is "50/50", an equal partnership. But Biblically, this is not true. Biblically, while the man has certain responsibilities, and the woman has certain OTHER responsibilities, and the man is the head of the woman, the woman is Queen of the Household. She is to manage the house in accordance to the wisdom given her by God in fulfillment of the Biblical dominion mandate.

An analogy may be used help to understand how this works. Military doctrine asserts that micromanagement is undesirable. Rather, what is needed is for the commander to develop "commander's intent". This is the broad outline of what is desired to be accomplished. The XO (executive officer) is then given authority to use his wits, training, experience - in short, his wisdom - and determine how best to carry out and achieve the commander's intent. A commander who constantly second guesses his XO and does not allow the XO to make decisions and manage things as much as possible is an officer who is not following his own commander's intent.

Granted, a wife may make a mistake in judgment, and her husband may need to step in. But likewise, a husband may be making a mistake in judgment, and his wife is certainly in a Scriptural position to help him to understand there may be a better way. But in either case, the woman is commanded to be the oikodespot of the home.

When a prospective bishop is required to "rule his household well", that includes having a wife who functions as the Executive Officer in charge of the household, the oikodespot, the one who is in charge of domestic affairs. A man who tries to play dictator at home and micromanage everything is not "ruling his household well", just as much as the man who doesn't exercise any authority at all and serves at an overbearing wife's beck and call.

[Amanah]

Edith Schaeffer wrote a book entitled "The Hidden Art of Homemaking"
which shows how creative and fulfilling running a home can be

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Art-Homemaking-Edith-Schaeffer/dp/0842313982

[Esaias]

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-11 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Isaiah 54:4-6 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. (5) For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. (6) For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (33) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Now, having established that Christian women are to be the oikodespots of the house, and seeing now that the church (New covenant Israel) is the wife of Christ, perhaps we can begin to see something about the proper role and authority of the church...

[houston]

Wow! Excellent posts, E.

[houston]

Last night I was watching something...

The guy says, “I’m the head of my house. I didn’t say I was the boss.” :lol

[Aquila]

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (4) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, (5) To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.


"Keepers at home" -

G3626
οἰκουρός, όν,
(οὖρος B)
I watching or keeping the house, of a watch-dog, Ar. V. 970; of a cock, Plu. 2.998b; οἰ. ὄφις, of the sacred serpent in the Acropolis, Ar. Lys. 759, Phylarch. 72 J., Hsch.
II
1. keeping at home: as Subst., οἰκουρός, ἡ, mistress of the house, housekeeper, S. Fr. 487, E. Hec. 1277: as Adj., Id. HF 45 (masc.); ἡ θεὸς ἡ καλουμένη οἰ. PLond. 1.125v. 11 (v A.D.); used in praise of a good wife, Ph. 2.431, D.C. 56.3.
2. contemptuously of a man, stay-at-home, opp. one who goes forth to war, λέοντ' ἄναλκιν.. οἰκουρόν A. Ag. 1225, cf. 1626, Din. 1.82; τὸν ὑγρὸν τοῦτον καὶ οἰ. Plu. 2.751a; δίαιτα οἰ. καὶ ἀργή Id. Per. 34.

"Guide the house" -

G3616
οἰκοδεσποτ-έω,
I to be master of a house or head of a family, 1Ti_5:14.
II Astrol., predominate, POxy. 235.16 (i A. D.), PLond. 1.130.163 (i/ii A. D.), Plu. 2.908c, Ptol. Tetr. 39, Luc. Astr. 20, Vett.Val. 64.8, Iamb. Myst. 9.5, etc.; cf. sq. 11.

It is Scriptural for a Christian wife to be a "keeper at home", one who guards and maintains the house. The term is specifically used derisively of men who stayed home and did not go forth to war. The term therefore clearly is the opposite of one who "goes forth". And that would include one who "goes forth to pursue a career". The idea of the dual income house, where both the man and the wife work outside the home to "bring home the bacon", is unscriptural, unChristian, and humanistic. It was introduced in the 20th century as a means to destroy the traditional family unit and structure, and it has been very successful in doing just that. Traditional Christians however seek to maintain the Biblical family structure, building strong families which will be the basis for a future strong Christian society.

Why is the Christian woman to be a "keeper at home"? It is because she is Scripturally instructed to "guide the house", to be an "oikodespotes", to "oikodespotein". Which means literally to be despot of the house. The woman, while under the authority of the husband, is nevertheless the despot of the house. She is the Mistress of the domestic sphere and all it entails. To get an idea of how this actually works, a quick look at Abraham and Sarah will suffice:

Genesis 16:1-6 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. (2) And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. (3) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. (4) And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. (5) And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. (6) But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

When people read this account they focus on the problem of Hagar, and Abraham being "dumb enough" to go along with this harebrained scheme. And in the process they miss a larger picture, and an important backdrop to the whole episode: Sarah was in charge of domestic affairs. Abraham wasn't relinquishing authority, nor was he abandoning his post. Neither was Sarah usurping authority, she was exercising her rightful place as the Woman of the house (or tent, as the case may be) and making decisions concerning the servant girl.

Now watch this:

Genesis 21:9-12 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. (10) Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (11) And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. (12) And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Sarah decided she had had enough of the servant girl and her uppity boy, so she demands that they be sent away. And God told Abraham to do it. Why? There were certainly Providential dealings of a prophetic nature going on, as we all know. But there is another reason as well - Sarah was in charge of the household under Abraham, and thus had a right to make such a demand with a reasonable expectation that it be met.

This of course doesn't imply she could usurp authority from Abraham. If Abraham had said "no, the girl and her boy stay" then Sarah would have had to bide her time. But it does illustrate that as the "woman of the house" she was second in command to her husband.

A Christian housewife is not just a maid or cook, no different than hired help. Rather, she is the oikodespotes who guards the home, protecting the children by guiding them, managing the domestic affairs.

I will relate an anecdote. My daughter at one time was teaching a Bible study series on "women of the Bible". She said many of the ladies who came rolled their eyes at the subject and were expecting to hear all about how the Bible teaches women should shut up, cook the meals, stay barefoot and pregnant, do what they're told, etc, that the man is the god of the house and king of the castle, etc. They were shocked when they discovered that, contrary to the world's feminist propaganda and lies, the Bible charges women with great responsibility, authority, and power. Far more so than any other religious teaching or tradition in history, and even more so than is commonly hoped for by modern "liberated" couples.

In a common "liberated" and secular marriage, they say everything is "50/50", an equal partnership. But Biblically, this is not true. Biblically, while the man has certain responsibilities, and the woman has certain OTHER responsibilities, and the man is the head of the woman, the woman is Queen of the Household. She is to manage the house in accordance to the wisdom given her by God in fulfillment of the Biblical dominion mandate.

An analogy may be used help to understand how this works. Military doctrine asserts that micromanagement is undesirable. Rather, what is needed is for the commander to develop "commander's intent". This is the broad outline of what is desired to be accomplished. The XO (executive officer) is then given authority to use his wits, training, experience - in short, his wisdom - and determine how best to carry out and achieve the commander's intent. A commander who constantly second guesses his XO and does not allow the XO to make decisions and manage things as much as possible is an officer who is not following his own commander's intent.

Granted, a wife may make a mistake in judgment, and her husband may need to step in. But likewise, a husband may be making a mistake in judgment, and his wife is certainly in a Scriptural position to help him to understand there may be a better way. But in either case, the woman is commanded to be the oikodespot of the home.

When a prospective bishop is required to "rule his household well", that includes having a wife who functions as the Executive Officer in charge of the household, the oikodespot, the one who is in charge of domestic affairs. A man who tries to play dictator at home and micromanage everything is not "ruling his household well", just as much as the man who doesn't exercise any authority at all and serves at an overbearing wife's beck and call.

Awesome post!

Can I copy this and send it to a few people?

[Amanah]

I know a Christian couple, the women excelled in Engineering at FIT, she married a guy who barely makes above minimum wage. They decided she would work and he would stay home and raise their children (they currently have 3).

According to the opening post, should this couple feel embarrassed by their arrangement, their arrangement seems very logical to me.

Also, it seems that unless the man can make a decent income, he should not get married?

[houston]

I know a Christian couple, the women excelled in Engineering at FIT, she married a guy who barely makes above minimum wage. They decided she would work and he would stay home and raise their children (they currently have 3).

According to the opening post, should this couple feel embarrassed by their arrangement, their arrangement seems very logical to me.

Also, it seems that unless the man can make a decent income, he should not get married?

My uncle recently asked me why I’m not married. I told him I can’t afford it.
A better approach would have been for the wife to work while the husband became more employable through college or a trade school.

[houston]

A friend recently asked if I think I’ll ever have children.
I said, “I have to get married first. And I’d have to be able to support a stay-at-home wife so she can homeschool the kids.”
He said, “God will provide.”

I think there’s wisdom in my perspective. But one of us has to be wrong, no?

[houston]

Everyone’s more concerned about my status than I am.

[Amanah]

I know another family, they remind me of the Sackett's they all hunt and fish. There are lots of preachers in the family. They are all trades people. The family is huge, tons of Uncles, Cousins, ect. They have roofers, tile guys, car mechanics, ect ect. They teach the next generation their trade and business skills. All the women are homemakers and home schoolers.

[houston]

I know another family, they remind me of the Sackett's they all hunt and fish. There are lots of preachers in the family. They are all trades people. The family is huge, tons of Uncles, cousins, ect. They have roofers, tile guys, car mechanics, ect ect. They teach the next generation their trade and business skills. All the women are homemakers and home schoolers.


That’s excellent!

[Esaias]

I know a Christian couple, the women excelled in Engineering at FIT, she married a guy who barely makes above minimum wage. They decided she would work and he would stay home and raise their children (they currently have 3).

According to the opening post, should this couple feel embarrassed by their arrangement, their arrangement seems very logical to me.

Also, it seems that unless the man can make a decent income, he should not get married?

Marriages are often unequal. (There's that "equality" thing! lol) A man ought to marry a woman suitable to him (a help meet, a help that is suited to him). Likewise, a woman ought to marry a man she is suitable for. But what often happens is two people with widely different stations, skills, intelligence, etc marry and the result is often uneven. For example, why would a woman want to marry a man that is far less intelligent than her, or whose skills are beneath hers, or similar? She would basically be the boss in the relationship and it could be a source of embarrassment for the guy.

Now, having said that, I would personally think the couple you described should work on getting him up to speed in providing for the family, even if it means a reduction in the family income. It's just not proper for a man to stay at home and do the wifely duties while the woman quits herself like a man bringing home the bacon.

That might be how our mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world likes it, but I don't see how God wants His children living out the lyrics to "Lola".

[Amanah]

Marriages are often unequal. (There's that "equality" thing! lol) A man ought to marry a woman suitable to him (a help meet, a help that is suited to him). Likewise, a woman ought to marry a man she is suitable for. But what often happens is two people with widely different stations, skills, intelligence, etc marry and the result is often uneven. For example, why would a woman want to marry a man that is far less intelligent than her, or whose skills are beneath hers, or similar? She would basically be the boss in the relationship and it could be a source of embarrassment for the guy.

Now, having said that, I would personally think the couple you described should work on getting him up to speed in providing for the family, even if it means a reduction in the family income. It's just not proper for a man to stay at home and do the wifely duties while the woman quits herself like a man bringing home the bacon.

That might be how our mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world likes it, but I don't see how God wants His children living out the lyrics to "Lola".

there is more to the story, the woman was sent to the US by her parents for an education, from I think the Philippines, she suffered from polio when she was a girl and walks with crutches. She became a citizen. Met some apostolics and converted, so she decided to stay here rather than go back home. Her biological clock was ticking. She met someone in the church who was somewhat older than her who proposed. It seems like a miracle that she was even able to bear her children. The children are lovely, amazing, inspiring teen agers, on fire for God. This couple is to old to change their life style now.

[Esaias]

A friend recently asked if I think I’ll ever have children.
I said, “I have to get married first. And I’d have to be able to support a stay-at-home wife so she can homeschool the kids.”
He said, “God will provide.”

I think there’s wisdom in my perspective. But one of us has to be wrong, no?


Proverbs says get the work in your field in order first, then build your house. Prov 24:27 :thumbsup

[Esaias]

there is more to the story, the woman was sent to the US by her parents for an education, from I think the Philippines, she suffered from polio when she was a girl and walks with crutches. She became a citizen. Met some apostolics and converted, so she decided to stay here rather than go back home. Her biological clock was ticking. She met someone in the church who was somewhat older than her who proposed. It seems like a miracle that she was even able to bear her children. The children are lovely, amazing, inspiring teen agers, on fire for God. This couple is to old to redo their life style now.

Hopefully their kids arent looking to replicate the pattern of the man being supported by the wife...?

Every situation is unique.

[houston]

Proverbs says get the work in your field in order first, then build your house. Prov 24:27 :thumbsup

Oh, nice.

[Esaias]

Oh, nice.

lol

Pray about it, do your thing, and God will provide the woman you need. :)

[Esaias]

Awesome post!

Can I copy this and send it to a few people?

You mean you think a Biblical, patriarchal, traditional, theonomic view of a woman's place is "awesome"? You must have overdosed on cbd? I thought you were convinced I supported the establishment of a theonomic fascist "breeder program" in a mean, patriarchal aristocratic Taliban-style oligarchic religious tyranny?

Or do you want to send it out as "Exhibit A: Why theonomists are bad people and must be stopped"?

lol

[Esaias]

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9-11 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Isaiah 54:4-6 Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. (5) For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. (6) For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (33) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Now, having established that Christian women are to be the oikodespots of the house, and seeing now that the church (New covenant Israel) is the wife of Christ, perhaps we can begin to see something about the proper role and authority of the church...

A clarification:

The Bible never calls a woman the oikodespot (lit master of the house) because that is the man's position. But, the wife is instructed to oikodespotein, or "rule the house". I didn't want anyone to get the idea that a woman is to rule the roost APART FROM or in opposition to the man.

The idea of a woman being the chief executive officer of a household, managing things under the general guidance of the man, is much more accurate. Women need to intelligently "know their place", and men need to give their wives room to actually fulfill their duties instead of thinking of them as not much more than a domestic servant and concubine. Or, going to the other extreme, and being a hen-pecked manlet.

[Esaias]

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

[Esaias]

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

A man might say nothing about wearing shoes in the house. But if the wife says "No shoes are to be worn in the house, all visitors and residents must take off their shoes before coming in the house" then that's pretty much how it is to be.

Likewise, there may be things unspoken in the Word, but the church nevertheless has authority to make certain determinations. And, of course, that requires inquiry into which and to what extent that authority extends.

[Amanah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVTevWmJt4

Marxists Feminism’s Ruined Lives – the horror I witnessed inside the women’s liberation movement.
by Mallory Millett, a sister of the radical US feminist Kate Millett.
The article, was an attempt to undo some of the destruction of family life caused by Mallory’s sister. and her fellow feminists.
The real aim of feminism is the destruction of marriage, the re-engineering of the family, and the moving of women en masse out of the home and into the workforce.
Millett tells how it all got under way. In 1969 she was invited by Kate to a consciousness-raising-group.
Present were 12 university educated women. The chair opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a litany:

"Why are we here today?" she asked.
"To make revolution," they answered.
"What kind of revolution?" she replied.
"The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
"By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
"By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
"And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
"By taking away his power!"
"How do we do that?"
"By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
"How can we destroy monogamy?"
Here their means to destroy marriage left Mallory dumbstruck:
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded.

They then discussed the setting up of the National Organisation of Women with the aim of deconstructing Western society. To do that they argued, they needed to “invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with “The Revolution.” The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

Millet’s books played a crucial role in advancing this agenda, and she ended up on the cover of Time magazine which celebrated her as “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 1o1 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women's "liberation" was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon "Women's Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Mallory went on to picture how young women going to college for the first time might go to one of these courses in all innocence. But there she would be taught that “her father is a villain, her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents.”

By the time Women’s Studies professors have finished with her, “she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should flop down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. “And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.” The goal of Women’s Liberation, according to Mallory, “is to wear each female down to the point of losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. “She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

[Amanah]

Patriarchy is responsible for the creation of Western Civilization.

Feminism is the Marxist attempt to destroy that Civilization. Feminism is promoted via public education, TV, and media.

Feminism is the lie that serving your employer is freedom while serving your husband and children is slavery.
The truth is that 90% of the jobs that women will be employed in are drudgery.
Few will actually have a fulfilling career.

Women reject the leadership of their husbands and depend on welfare state to take the role of their husbands for protection and provision.

Men want respect, assistance, sex, and children.
Women want to be cherished, loved and to find fulfillment in families.
The patriarchal family provides fulfillment to the needs of men and women.

[Amanah]

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

[Evang.Benincasa]

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

Seems a little robotically religious when you line it up as mere rules. Yet, leadership is all about friendship through honest love. We drive cattle, but we lead and protect sheep. No one follows out of force, there isn't devotion, and loyalty. There is only fear which motivates submission. Loyalty, and love, at only comes through trust which is built upon love and devotion.
People who hate me, hate every word that comes out of my mouth. They also salivate at every misfortune. Yet, those who love me are faithful, loyal, and protective. Words I say are cherished, and a misfortune is met with weeping for me. Big differences and bigger when it comes to leading people. Be it the church family, the construction crew, wife, and children.

[Esaias]

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

Other than the voting thing, how is any of what you listed Biblical?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Other than the voting thing, how is any of what you listed Biblical?

He thought it was.


https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/rapidcityjournal.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/54/95432d04-54ea-5886-8d35-ee6f23a42eab/95432d04-54ea-5886-8d35-ee6f23a42eab.image.jpg

[Esaias]

While I recognize that the Patriarchal family is God's design for the family, Christian reconstructionism still alarms me.

Women would not have the right to vote? women would have no rights whatsoever.
Women would have no say in the lives of their children.
A man could divorce a woman, kick her to the curb and take her children?
Women would be the property of their father who would marry them off without consent and then they would become of property or their husband?

I agree with theonomy in principle, but worry about theonomy in practice.

If Biblical patriarchy is God's design for the family, then why would you be alarmed at the idea of society recognising and supporting it? Consider that, for the most part, Biblical patriarchy has been (to one degree or another) the standard family format in Western Christian civilisation except for the last 100 years or so (really going downhill the last 50 years).

Women could not vote until 1920 in America. In the rest of the world, women were allowed to vote starting around the 1890s going up to the 1980s. So the idea of women voting for government officials or taking part on referendums is a completely new and novel idea, coinciding by the way with the rise of socialism.

By extending voting rights to women, the family was essentially destroyed as a political unit. Women were now a "block" for politicians to pander to. Women could unite as a block and make political demands, which pits women against men. It was one of the major goals of the feminist movement, and it was necessary in order to drive a wedge between men and women. The old "divide and conquer" strategy.

Biblically, women are not to usurp authority over men. According to the Bible, when women run things politically, it is a sign the nation is under Divine Judgment. Being an elector places one in a position of helping to run the country, since the electors are supposedly the "deciders" of public policy and the ones who choose representatives to manage government.

Of course, none of this even matters now since elections are rigged electronically and election results cannot actually be verified.

As for having "no rights", we really need to get away from thinking in terms of "muh rights". The Bible doesn't really focus on everyone's "rights" but rather everyone's responsibilities and obligations. When God establishes an obligation to do something, one therefore "has the right" to do that thing. Biblically, women have certain responsibilities, and Biblically they are dissuaded from certain other things. As a result, one cannot have a "right" to do that which God specifies belongs to another. For example, no woman "has the right" to rule over her husband as a master. Since rights come from God, the only rights that exist are those granted by God. Man cannot grant that which God has not granted him the right to do.

What "rights" would be disallowed to women in a Christian, Biblical society? The right to divorce her husband and take the kids and all his money and property for the flimsiest of reasons? A right to alimony in just about all cases? You mentioned a fear that a husband could kick his wife to the curb and take the kids. Well, that's exactly what women do to men all the time in today's society.

In a Bible-based society, divorce for "any reason" doesn't exist. There must be Biblically valid reasons for divorce. Which as a matter of fact is generally how it has always been in society for the last 1800 some odd years anyway, until the advent of "no fault" divorce and the decriminalisation of adultery and spousal abandonment.

In a Christian family - regardless of the surrounding culture - the family orders its life according to God's Word. A family living Biblically wouldn't even notice any changes in their lifestyle if tomorrow all of society suddenly started following Biblical principles as the basis for law and jurisprudence and social policy. There is currently no law and no social policies or even societal peer pressures that force Christian wives to submit to the authority of their husbands. Rather, Christian wives do such because they believe the Bible and seek to obey God. Christians who actually follow the Bible in their lives are little theonomies already.

As for women not having any say in the lives of their children, where is that coming from? Under what conditions would a woman need to go to court and seek governmental interference in her family's life in order for her to "have a say" in her children's lives? What does that even mean? Does it mean if a woman is married to a Christian but she is an atheist that she ought to have the authority to raise her children as atheists? And her husband ought to be forced by the state to acquiesce in her demands?

If she is a Christian, and her husband is a Christian, then what's the problem? Are you saying a Christian woman ought to have the legal right to sue her Christian husband because she wants her kids to go to one particular school but he wants them to go to another?

I don't understand what "loss of rights" you are speaking of. I think the feminists and the antichristian propaganda elements in our country have successfully convinced people that if we follow the Bible it will entail horrors untold and losses unmentionable. It's a fear tactic meant to keep people from following the Bible.

As I said, a Christian family following the Bible doesn't need the state to enforce the Bible on their lives. A Christian woman following the Bible doesn't need the state to enforce the Bible on her life. No Christian needs the state to enforce anything against them... unless they are seeking to do wrong in the first place.

As for arranged marriages, there is no Scripture that I am aware of that authorises a father to sell off his daughters to whom he will with no regard for her own feelings in the matter. The Bible does however teach that parents can refuse to authorise a marriage of their child. And again, that is how it used to be in Christendom up until relatively recently. You couldn't get married without parental consent. Then, countries began to introduce "age of consent" laws, which originally had to do with how old you had to be to get married without parental authorisation. Eventually, parental authorisation was reduced to only applying to people under 18 (or 17, or in some jurisdictions I believe it can be as low as 16). Again, all of this is part of a larger trend tending towards the destruction of the family unit in a scripted agenda to remake society into a much more malleable and controllable mold.

The long standing traditional (and Biblical) approach to marriage worked out pretty well for civilisation. Recently, feminists and humanists began to agitate that such a system was horrible and oppressive, and if we just do away with all that old fashioned traditionalism we can have Freedumb (tm) and everyone will be much happier. And the actual results? Marriage has become a joke, men and women are both miserable, families are practically nonexistent, everyone has become a consumer driven by irrational desires, dancing to the puppet strings of those who control society and profit off the people's lunacy. Nobody knows which bathroom to go to anymore, there is no cohesion, no common sense, and no rationality anymore.

The feminists have achieved their goals, and the insanity you see everyday around you is what they were aiming for. That might be a strong clue that we need to get back to the old ways of doing things, back before everyone got all stupid. :)

[Esaias]

https://feminism.eserver.org/theory/feminist/Womens-Movement

Organised feminism did not really kick off until the first Women's Conference hed in Seneca Falls, America, in 1848. To begin with, the Women's Movement evolved out of social reform groups such as the Abolition of Slavery, the Social Purity and Temperance movements. Women began to realise that in order to transform society they would need their own organisations to do so. They campaigned upon a whole range of issues; from guardianship of infants, property rights, divorce, access to higher education and the medical professions, to equal pay and protective legislation for women workers - many of which women are still campaigning for today!

...

1940s and 1950s
The war had challenged stereotypes in the workplace and so women began to enter the employment market in much larger numbers. It soon became apparent that some of the burden of family responsibility needed to be shifted onto the state. Together with the trade unions, the women's movement fought hard for a welfare state system which would provide this and act as a safety net for society's most vulnerable. This is perhaps one of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CENTURY.

...

1960s and 1970s
These decades saw the radicalisation of the feminist movement, led by American women. The mass entry of women into the workforce and the Pill changed women's traditional role within the family. Feminists demanded the right to abortion on demand, free childcare provision and equal pay.

[Esaias]

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
Woman's Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, 19-20 July 1848


On the morning of the 19th, the Convention assembled at 11 o'clock. . . . The Declaration of Sentiments, offered for the acceptance of the Convention, was then read by E. C. Stanton. A proposition was made to have it re-read by paragraph, and after much consideration, some changes were suggested and adopted. The propriety of obtaining the signatures of men to the Declaration was discussed in an animated manner: a vote in favor was given; but concluding that the final decision would be the legitimate business of the next day, it was referred.

[In the afternoon] The reading of the Declaration was called for, an addition having been inserted since the morning session. A vote taken upon the amendment was carried, and papers circulated to obtain signatures. The following resolutions were then read:

Whereas, the great precept of nature is conceded to be, "that man shall pursue his own true and substantial happiness," Blackstone, in his Commentaries, remarks, that this law of Nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.1 It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid, derive all their force, and all their validity, and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original; Therefore,

Resolved, That such laws as conflict, in any way, with the true and substantial happiness of woman, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and of no validity; for this is "superior in obligation to any other.

Resolved, That all laws which prevent woman from occupying such a station in society as her conscience shall dictate, or which place her in a position inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and therefore of no force or authority.

Resolved, That woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.

Resolved, That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in regard to the laws under which they -live, that they may no longer publish their degradation, by declaring themselves satisfied with their present position, nor their ignorance, by asserting that they have all the rights they want.

Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.

Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Resolved, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience, comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance, her appearance on the stage, in the concert, or in the feats of the circus.

Resolved, That woman has too long rested satisfied in the circumscribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.2

Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.3

Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.

Resolved, therefore, That, being invested by the Creator with the same capabilities, and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise, it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to promote every righteous cause, by every righteous means; and especially in regard to the great subjects of morals and religion, it is self-evidently her right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident truth, growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature, any custom or authority adverse to it, whether modern or wearing the hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as self-evident falsehood, and at war with the interests of mankind.


Thursday Morning.
The Convention assembled at the hour appointed, James Mott, of Philadelphia, in the Chair. The minutes of the previous day having been read, E. C. Stanton again read the Declaration of Sentiments, which was freely discussed . . . and was unanimously adopted, as follows:

Declaration of Sentiments.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.4

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.5

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education—all colleges being closed against her.6

He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation,—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf.We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.

Firmly relying upon the final triumph of the Right and the True, we do this day affix our signatures to this declaration.

At the appointed hour the meeting convened. The minutes having been read, the resolutions of the day before were read and taken up separately. Some, from their self-evident truth, elicited but little remark; others, after some criticism, much debate, and some slight alterations, were finally passed by a large majority.7

[At an evening session] Lucretia Mott offered and spoke to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women, for the overthrow of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman an equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.

The Resolution was adopted.


http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html

[Esaias]

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

However, THIS is really the direction I was hoping to take this discussion....

[Amanah]

I will give you your thread back after this last comment, but my concerns are with a woman's ability to support and protect herself if she needs to in regards to

education
employment
property
marriage
divorce
child custody and support.

It is difficult for me to envision OT law outside of the OT narrative in which women were given in marriage as prizes for exploits, were offered to rapists to protect men from suffering mob violence, had no means of support other then fathers/husbands/sons. Even in a theonomy men may still choose to do evil, and women still need to be able to protect and support themselves and their children.

[Esaias]

I will give you your thread back after this last comment, but my concerns are with a woman's ability to support and protect herself if she needs to in regards to

education
employment
property
marriage
divorce
child custody and support.

It is difficult for me to envision OT law outside of the OT narrative in which women were given in marriage as prizes for exploits, were offered to rapists to protect men from suffering mob violence, had no means of support other then fathers/husbands/sons. Even in a theonomy men may still choose to do evil, and women still need to be able to protect and support themselves and their children.

I don't mind discussing these issues, the conversation goes where it will. :)

Theonomy isn't just OT law, it's the entire Word of God.

Women given in marriage as prizes for exploits - that had to do with laws of warfare. After the men were killed, who would take care of the women? The law actually demonstrates mercy:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. (14) And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

She isn't just a captive sex slave, she is a WIFE. It should be noted that nobody is commanded to do such, rather God regulates what is to happen IF such a situation develops. Prior to this, men would just take slaves of who they wanted, and that was that. But God intervenes and legislates that such captives are to be treated as WIVES, with all the regular rights and privileges and responsibilities of a regular wife. And, if the guy decides it ain't working out, he has to let her go, he cannot sell her off like a slave. Why? Because she is a wife, not a slave. Keep in mind that the NT regulates our understanding and application of OT law.

Rapists:

Exodus 22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

This passage authorisse and even requires "shotgun marriage" in the case of a man ENTICING a young girl. He is required to marry her, unless her father refuse to consent, in which case the guy STILL has to pay the dowry. This was designed to operate as a deterrent to fornication.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

From Keil and Delitzsch Commentary:

Deu_22:28-29
The last case: if a virgin was not betrothed, and a man seized her and lay with her, and they were found, i.e., discovered or convicted of their deed, the man was to pay the father of the girl fifty shekels of silver, for the reproach brought upon him and his house, and to marry the girl whom he had humbled, without ever being able to divorce her. This case is similar to the one mentioned in Exo_22:15-16. The omission to mention the possibility of the father refusing to give him his daughter for a wife, makes no essential difference. It is assumed as self-evident here, that such a right was possessed by the father.

From Gill's Commentary:
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu_22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo_22:16 but not without her consent:

From Clarke's Commentary:
And the man force her - A rape also, by these ancient institutions, was punished with death, because a woman’s honor was considered equally as precious as her life; therefore the same punishment was inflicted on the ravisher as upon the murderer. This offense is considered in the same point of view in the British laws, and by them also it is punished with death.

Concerning actual rape:

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: (26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: (27) For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Rape was punishable by the death penalty. (Differences in terminology between the betrothed vs unbetrothed damsel already discussed above.)

As for an unmarried, orphaned, widowed, or divorced woman not having any means of support, while this certainly may be the case due to many people's circumstances, yet we should remember Ruth and Naomi's situation: Ruth went to work in her kinsman's field. There is nothing I can find that absolutely prohibits all women from any and all forms of employment whatsoever. I do find this:

Numbers 27:1-8 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. (2) And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, (3) Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. (4) Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. (5) And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. (6) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (7) The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. (8) And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

Here, orphaned (fatherless) women are clearly allowed to own land to provide for their sustenance. They are also given the same right of inheritance of property as sons, assuming the daughters are alone with no brothers to take care of them.

I also see this:

Proverbs 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

Clearly, the virtuous woman has the right to purchase property, and apparently has the means to purchase property, thus implying a woman under Biblical law is most certainly NOT just a helpless and penniless ditz.

[Esaias]

We also need to keep in mind that many of the Bible laws presuppose a Biblical society. In a non Biblical society, one in which God's Word-Law is NOT followed and is NOT the basis of society, many commandments and judgments found in Scripture simply cannot be carried out at all. Thus, implementing them requires and presupposes a theonomic culture, which in turn presupposes that the people have in fact become theonomic in their thinking and lifestyle to begin with.

A woman is worried about marrying the wrong guy and getting divorced, and "in a Biblical society" will find herself homeless and destitute. But "in a Biblical society" the woman has a family, and parents who were actively involved in the marriage process, providing an emotionally DETACHED perspective, to help see to it that she didn't marry a total dud. And if she DID, or if the guy just goes bad, and divorces her, she can still return to her family because in a Biblical society FAMILY TAKES CARE OF ITS MEMBERS.

And if she was truly destitute with no family, the church is REQUIRED TO HELP TAKE CARE OF HER. And if neither the church nor family were available, there is nothing that I can find in the Bible that prohibits her from getting employment, earning money, owning property, and taking care of herself.

Regarding education: we have to ask "to what purpose"? When people talk about "getting an education" what they mean is going to college to get a degree so they can get a high paying important job and a career. This is likely required in a society full of godless heathens with no respect for the Word of God, because in such a society there are no men who will do their duty and actually take faithful care of their wives, and there are no men (fathers) who will apply necessary "peer pressure" on the husbands of their daughters to make sure they do their duty, or who seeing the bums afar off refuse to let their daughters marry the worthless imbeciles.

So, in such a situation, sure a woman needs to take advantage of every opportunity a godless society offers to protect herself and do what Christian families and men and churches aren't doing.

BUT, if a woman is a Christian, and married to a Christian, then what is the basis for her fear? That her husband really isn't all that Christian, and may dump her for some broad next door? Because he can get away with it in this godless unBiblical society? Because after all adultery in a theonomic society would be a capital offense... If that's the case, then she probably needs to hedge her bets as much as she can, because obviously she doesn't have faith in her man.

If however she is worried about what would happen to her if he died, for example, then again IF she has no family to provide for her then of course she needs to protect herself economically. Covenanting with God isn't necessarily a suicide pact.

But before there is a theonomic society there have to be theonomic families, which means families that know and seek to fulfill their duties to their family members, so that such catastrophic events are mitigated and the widow doesn't have to go out and fend for herself. And that requires theonomic churches, churches that take their duties seriously especially as concerns taking care of widows and orphans and others who are genuinely helpless.

[Esaias]

And building theonomic, that is, godly Christian, families, is going to require mothers and wives teaching their children to live by the Word of God. It is going to require fathers teaching their children likewise, and enforcing it. It is going to require building God fearing Christ honouring families.

Society flows out of the family, it is a byproduct of the family. It is not the other way around. The state does not produce the family, it's vice versa. So to reconstruct society the family must first be reformed and reconstructed along Biblical lines. In other words, Christian families need to get busy studying and applying the Word of God to every area of their lives. As this process occurs, and as such families grow and expand, and as the church grows and expands both through the expansion of godly families and through evangelism and conversion of godless heathens to Christ's cause, it influences and changes the very makeup and essence of society itself.

[Amanah]

We also need to keep in mind that many of the Bible laws presuppose a Biblical society. In a non Biblical society, one in which God's Word-Law is NOT followed and is NOT the basis of society, many commandments and judgments found in Scripture simply cannot be carried out at all. Thus, implementing them requires and presupposes a theonomic culture, which in turn presupposes that the people have in fact become theonomic in their thinking and lifestyle to begin with.

A woman is worried about marrying the wrong guy and getting divorced, and "in a Biblical society" will find herself homeless and destitute. But "in a Biblical society" the woman has a family, and parents who were actively involved in the marriage process, providing an emotionally DETACHED perspective, to help see to it that she didn't marry a total dud. And if she DID, or if the guy just goes bad, and divorces her, she can still return to her family because in a Biblical society FAMILY TAKES CARE OF ITS MEMBERS.

And if she was truly destitute with no family, the church is REQUIRED TO HELP TAKE CARE OF HER. And if neither the church nor family were available, there is nothing that I can find in the Bible that prohibits her from getting employment, earning money, owning property, and taking care of herself.

Regarding education: we have to ask "to what purpose"? When people talk about "getting an education" what they mean is going to college to get a degree so they can get a high paying important job and a career. This is likely required in a society full of godless heathens with no respect for the Word of God, because in such a society there are no men who will do their duty and actually take faithful care of their wives, and there are no men (fathers) who will apply necessary "peer pressure" on the husbands of their daughters to make sure they do their duty, or who seeing the bums afar off refuse to let their daughters marry the worthless imbeciles.

So, in such a situation, sure a woman needs to take advantage of every opportunity a godless society offers to protect herself and do what Christian families and men and churches aren't doing.

BUT, if a woman is a Christian, and married to a Christian, then what is the basis for her fear? That her husband really isn't all that Christian, and may dump her for some broad next door? Because he can get away with it in this godless unBiblical society? Because after all adultery in a theonomic society would be a capital offense... If that's the case, then she probably needs to hedge her bets as much as she can, because obviously she doesn't have faith in her man.

If however she is worried about what would happen to her if he died, for example, then again IF she has no family to provide for her then of course she needs to protect herself economically. Covenanting with God isn't necessarily a suicide pact.

But before there is a theonomic society there have to be theonomic families, which means families that know and seek to fulfill their duties to their family members, so that such catastrophic events are mitigated and the widow doesn't have to go out and fend for herself. And that requires theonomic churches, churches that take their duties seriously especially as concerns taking care of widows and orphans and others who are genuinely helpless.

:thumbsup

[Monterrey]

I agree with some of the topic here, ie that the woman should steer much in the house. Yet if we are not careful, because of the laziness of many men what happens is that she gains all control through his ceding of his authority. At that point in time what happens is that the woman is now overtaken with a Jezebel spirit and you have trouble.

The problem with Jezebel is that you cannot have that without a Ahab.

Again, I see a lot here that is good yet the problem with the church today is that most men want the woman to be in control, yet that does not excuse them.

When Adam and Eve messed up we see that God still came to Adam and asked him... Adam, where are you?

Balance is needed in this topic and is lacking in most Pentecostal churches.

Either they are dictators who believe that the woman can't breathe without permission or they have ceded so much power to the wife that she runs it all. No balance.

[Esaias]

I agree with some of the topic here, ie that the woman should steer much in the house. Yet if we are not careful, because of the laziness of many men what happens is that she gains all control through his ceding of his authority. At that point in time what happens is that the woman is now overtaken with a Jezebel spirit and you have trouble.

The problem with Jezebel is that you cannot have that without a Ahab.

Again, I see a lot here that is good yet the problem with the church today is that most men want the woman to be in control, yet that does not excuse them.

Indeed, and that is why men need to be taught to know their place also. We have an epidemic in this country (throughout Europe as well) where men and women have their roles all confused. Thus the need for sound doctrine and families modeling proper behavior for both man and woman.

[Amanah]

But getting back to the church analogy...

Since the church is Christ's Bride, she is to fulfill her wifely responsibilities. And that includes "guiding the house" as well as "guarding the house".

This necessarily means the church has authority to determine certain things. Just as a wife has authority to make various determinations concerning how the household is managed, so too does the assembly.

The purpose of the Church is to conceive, nurse, bear, and raise up children to maturity according to the will of the Father.